> > Perhaps lintian could check for .pc files == pkgconfig as a standard > > check? > > I started thinking about this some more and I'm not sure that I > understand. Do we really need a dependency on pkg-config? That would > imply that such a package won't function properly without pkg-config > available. Or is this more of a Recommends or even Suggests sort of > thing?
I think the original request is the wrong way around. A package containing a .pc file doesn't necessarily need a .pc file for it's own build, it provides a .pc file used in builds of reverse dependencies. e.g. libA-dev includes foo.pc to describe itself. libB build depends on libA-dev. If libA only depends on libc6, it doesn't need pkg-config itself, despite providing a .pc file for reverse dependencies like libB. If libB upstream choose to use a different method of configuring libB to locate the libA CFLAGS and --libs output, then libB does not have to build-depend on pkg-config, even though libA includes a .pc. It is advisable and convenient to use .pc files where provided but it isn't compulsory. (Some .pc files are buggy and manual configuration can simplify dependency trees until such time as the .pc file is fixed.) There is nothing to require that libB itself has to provide a B.pc file even if libB upstream DO choose to use the .pc file from libA-dev. There is therefore no clear relationship between the existence of a .pc file in a -dev package and a dependency on pkg-config. One method would be to grep the contents of configure.in|ac for certain macros and commands but even then there is no guarantee that the package is built using such ./configure options that actually call the identified macro. Maybe this very old bug should be closed as "unfeasible"? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpqVs0mxpJQC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
